FBI says Hasan wasn't involved in terrorist activities

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I don't really think its much of coincidence that people are arguing about whether this is or is not terrorism - especially in light of the last 8 years and a government that was notorious for twisting and stretching legalities and legal definitions to make things appear other than they are.

If you bought the idea that a Iraqi teenager with a rifle who snipes a US soldier from some bushes is a terrorist and can be treated as such, then clearly you're going to buy the idea that a guy with no direct links to an organized paramilitary group is also a terrorist.

Having links to a paramilitary group has never been the be all end all definition of a terrorist. In fact as has been illustrated, it isn't even part of the DOD definition.

Its you libs who are trying to redefine it now so you can be PC

[Peikko 1,575]

I remember the use of the term "terrorist organization" before in reference to the Environmental Liberation Front. They are a group thay, in 2008, burned SUV's and houses under construction in the name of saving the planet.

Quite rightly if their activities inflict fear. "Saving the planet" is an ideological movement in this context. I am not sure that buring housing under construction quite fits the 'fear' motif, as apposed to simply being illegal acts, but arson is a serious offense none the less.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't really think its much of coincidence that people are arguing about whether this is or is not terrorism - especially in light of the last 8 years and a government that was notorious for twisting and stretching legalities and legal definitions to make things appear other than they are.

If you bought the idea that a Iraqi teenager with a rifle who snipes a US soldier from some bushes is a terrorist and can be treated as such, then clearly you're going to buy the idea that a guy with no direct links to an organized paramilitary group is also a terrorist.

Having links to a paramilitary group has never been the be all end all definition of a terrorist. In fact as has been illustrated, it isn't even part of the DOD definition.

Its you libs who are trying to redefine it now so you can be PC

You aren't a member of the DOD, Joe, neither am I - the court system has ultimate authority to make the determination of whether or not this was terrorism - not you or I (or anyone else here).

The fact is neither of us are privvy to all the facts pertaining to this man, his situation and this crime. It has nothing to do with political correctness - there's simply no way to make this man's crime any less heinous than it obviously is.

[nowhereman 1]

The term "terrorism" is always used for "unspeakable" crimes, by some here on VJ. Given that fact, some of these same people oppose capital punishment for the same crimes....Go figure....

Irrespective of crime titles (capital murder, terrorism, nutcase, etc....), this case requires the immediate execution of the "accused"...

Immediately guilty, since people saw him do it and one shot him....He should hang.....soon.

A quick and fair trial first....

Edit for spelling....

I support capital punishment and as for whether or not Hasan is a terrorist I apply the Department of Defense definition to determine that. My opinion on this matter has absolutely nothing to do with politics and I denounce the other VJ members that want to make this a political discussion (and worse bash anyone with a different view).

Why not? You bash any conservative who has a different view than you do?

I bash YOU & a few others because almost everything you say is full of rhetoric & ignorance (and last time I checked ignorance isn't a point of view). Check my replies to other Right VJers (e.g. alienlovechild, simpson) & although I tend to disagree with them I give them more respect than you because they tend to give it back.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I don't really think its much of coincidence that people are arguing about whether this is or is not terrorism - especially in light of the last 8 years and a government that was notorious for twisting and stretching legalities and legal definitions to make things appear other than they are.

If you bought the idea that a Iraqi teenager with a rifle who snipes a US soldier from some bushes is a terrorist and can be treated as such, then clearly you're going to buy the idea that a guy with no direct links to an organized paramilitary group is also a terrorist.

Having links to a paramilitary group has never been the be all end all definition of a terrorist. In fact as has been illustrated, it isn't even part of the DOD definition.

Its you libs who are trying to redefine it now so you can be PC

You aren't a member of the DOD, Joe, neither am I - the court system has ultimate authority to make the determination of whether or not this was terrorism - not you or I (or anyone else here).

The fact is neither of us are privvy to all the facts pertaining to this man, his situation and this crime. It has nothing to do with political correctness - there's simply no way to make this man's crime any less heinous than it obviously is.

Yet you went out of your way to try and prove that it is probably PTSD, with no facts on that either.

Terrorism to you, can NEVER ever be the cause.

The term "terrorism" is always used for "unspeakable" crimes, by some here on VJ. Given that fact, some of these same people oppose capital punishment for the same crimes....Go figure....

Irrespective of crime titles (capital murder, terrorism, nutcase, etc....), this case requires the immediate execution of the "accused"...

Immediately guilty, since people saw him do it and one shot him....He should hang.....soon.

A quick and fair trial first....

Edit for spelling....

I support capital punishment and as for whether or not Hasan is a terrorist I apply the Department of Defense definition to determine that. My opinion on this matter has absolutely nothing to do with politics and I denounce the other VJ members that want to make this a political discussion (and worse bash anyone with a different view).

Why not? You bash any conservative who has a different view than you do?

I bash YOU & a few others because almost everything you say is full of rhetoric & ignorance (and last time I checked ignorance isn't a point of view). Check my replies to other Right VJers (e.g. alienlovechild, simpson) & although I tend to disagree with them I give them more respect than you because they tend to give it back.

You mistake me though. I don't want or need your respect.

I guess you have no points of view then, as ignorance seems to be your profession.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't really think its much of coincidence that people are arguing about whether this is or is not terrorism - especially in light of the last 8 years and a government that was notorious for twisting and stretching legalities and legal definitions to make things appear other than they are.

If you bought the idea that a Iraqi teenager with a rifle who snipes a US soldier from some bushes is a terrorist and can be treated as such, then clearly you're going to buy the idea that a guy with no direct links to an organized paramilitary group is also a terrorist.

Having links to a paramilitary group has never been the be all end all definition of a terrorist. In fact as has been illustrated, it isn't even part of the DOD definition.

Its you libs who are trying to redefine it now so you can be PC

You aren't a member of the DOD, Joe, neither am I - the court system has ultimate authority to make the determination of whether or not this was terrorism - not you or I (or anyone else here).

The fact is neither of us are privvy to all the facts pertaining to this man, his situation and this crime. It has nothing to do with political correctness - there's simply no way to make this man's crime any less heinous than it obviously is.

Yet you went out of your way to try and prove that it is probably PTSD, with no facts on that either.

Terrorism to you, can NEVER ever be the cause.

I remembered that I had heard a piece on the radio about a staff colonel who developed PTSD from seeing bodies of IAD victimes brought back into camp. The point being that the condition can be caused by other things than being shot at one too many times.

I'd hardly call that "going out of my way".

Edited November 13, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[nowhereman 1]

Having links to a paramilitary group has never been the be all end all definition of a terrorist. In fact as has been illustrated, it isn't even part of the DOD definition. Its you libs who are trying to redefine it now so you can be PC

I offered the DoD definition of terrorism as a reference, since people were pulling definitions out of their butt. I also said feel free to use other legitimate definitions to argue a point of view.

Yet you (Gene Hunt) went out of your way to try and prove that it is probably PTSD, with no facts on that either.

I think I illustrated that Hasan could not have PTSD because he wasn't exposed to combat.

You mistake me though. I don't want or need your respect.

I guess you have no points of view then, as ignorance seems to be your profession.

This is consistent with your pattern of saying whatever you want with no facts or proof & then calling it truth. Of course you don't need my respect because to do so would require you to actually support what you are saying. Unlike you I actually support my opinions with facts (e.g. the DoD definition of terrorism). So tell me whose opinions seem to be based on ignorance?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Seriously Joe, there are adults here trying to have a discussion, GTFO.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Having links to a paramilitary group has never been the be all end all definition of a terrorist. In fact as has been illustrated, it isn't even part of the DOD definition. Its you libs who are trying to redefine it now so you can be PC

I offered the DoD definition of terrorism as a reference, since people were pulling definitions out of their butt. I also said feel free to use other legitimate definitions to argue a point of view.

Yet you (Gene Hunt) went out of your way to try and prove that it is probably PTSD, with no facts on that either.

I think I illustrated that Hasan could not have PTSD because he wasn't exposed to combat.

You mistake me though. I don't want or need your respect.

I guess you have no points of view then, as ignorance seems to be your profession.

This is consistent with your pattern of saying whatever you want with no facts or proof & then calling it truth. Of course you don't need my respect because to do so would require you to actually support what you are saying. Unlike you I actually support my opinions with facts (e.g. the DoD definition of terrorism). So tell me whose opinions seem to be based on ignorance?

Sorry, but your reference actually backed up my argument, not yours. It fully supports everything I am saying about what is and isn't a terrorist.

Seriously Joe, there are adults here trying to have a discussion, GTFO.

"you're whining"

[The_Dude 1,142]

No joe, I see in this thread, people trying to discuss what it is that defines what a terrorist is and terrorism as a whole. You come in and muck that up with your insipid commentary. Try to participate without getting all mad and declaring that all libs are wrong because they don't agree with you. It's a discourse, do try to contribute, or leave.

[nowhereman 1]

This is consistent with your pattern of saying whatever you want with no facts or proof & then calling it truth. Of course you don't need my respect because to do so would require you to actually support what you are saying. Unlike you I actually support my opinions with facts (e.g. the DoD definition of terrorism). So tell me whose opinions seem to be based on ignorance?

Sorry, but your reference actually backed up my argument, not yours. It fully supports everything I am saying about what is and isn't a terrorist.

You are simply repeating yourself. You state an opinion & when questioned your reply is "because I'm right". That ####### didn't work in first grade, why do you still use it as an adult?

OK I will break this down Barney Style for you (again):

The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

- Hasan is clearly guilty of the first part. However the question is did he "intend to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."? Try anwering that question and avoid using "libs" or "because I said so" in your answer.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

This is consistent with your pattern of saying whatever you want with no facts or proof & then calling it truth. Of course you don't need my respect because to do so would require you to actually support what you are saying. Unlike you I actually support my opinions with facts (e.g. the DoD definition of terrorism). So tell me whose opinions seem to be based on ignorance?

Sorry, but your reference actually backed up my argument, not yours. It fully supports everything I am saying about what is and isn't a terrorist.

You are simply repeating yourself. You state an opinion & when questioned your reply is "because I'm right". That ####### didn't work in first grade, why do you still use it as an adult?

OK I will break this down Barney Style for you (again):

The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

- Hasan is clearly guilty of the first part. However the question is did he "intend to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."? Try anwering that question and avoid using "libs" or "because I said so" in your answer.

Yes he did, and fits the second part. Its been well proven that he disagreed with US foreign policy and sought to disrupt or change it by his actions. But not enough for you apparently.

And you are a lib because I said so.

No joe, I see in this thread, people trying to discuss what it is that defines what a terrorist is and terrorism as a whole. You come in and muck that up with your insipid commentary. Try to participate without getting all mad and declaring that all libs are wrong because they don't agree with you. It's a discourse, do try to contribute, or leave.

I think i was mad once on this board about a month ago. But it had nothing to do with this debate. I don't get mad. Its you libbies who get angry and emotional whenever faced with common sense and truth.

[nowhereman 1]

OK I will break this down Barney Style for you (again):

The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

- Hasan is clearly guilty of the first part. However the question is did he "intend to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."? Try anwering that question and avoid using "libs" or "because I said so" in your answer.

Yes he did, and fits the second part. Its been well proven that he disagreed with US foreign policy and sought to disrupt or change it by his actions. But not enough for you apparently.

And you are a lib because I said so.

OK you get a couple of points for actually answering the question & I agree that Hasan disagreed with US foreign policy, but there are no known links to terrorists so I don't see that he "sought to disrupt or change it by his actions". Again I am NOT defending Hasan's actions, but merely am comparing the known facts to the above definition (much like the FBI did).

This is your best response yet Joe... thanks.

P.s. You lose a point for calling me a lib

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh no... that was a typical copout.

[nowhereman 1]

Oh no... that was a typical copout.

I was grading on a curve... Joe usually gets a F so this passes as a C